About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Dooley 5, Dpw 4, Starbucks 2, The City 2, Mr. Quon 2, Wiener 2, Yee Riley 2, Riley 2, Portland 1, Andres 1, San Francisco 1, Adams 1, Dwight 1, Barabara 1, O'brien 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 1, 2012
    8:00 - 8:30pm PST  

8:00pm
say you are in the address you want to be is in that 50', it's an automatic no-go at counter. am i correct? so it's very different sort of framework in terms of -- in many ways for the property owners or the restaurant/food establishments, there will likely be less amount of permits that they are going to have to -- for those who tend to appeal, would appeal, because dpw is not -- dpw is not going to be issuing the notices. there is a 300' notice requirement and a 30-day, correct? yes. so that is already in place. so again, just what is maintaining is that should the permit be contested, again then again
8:01pm
dpw can take into consideration the like food and 300 feet. those considerations are still being maintained. when we initially made the initial regulation, the consideration of the like food within 4 -- 300 feet. i think currently and andres, maybe you can come up to make sure this is clear. it's following the current formula retail requirements. my understanding is that formula retail mobile food vendors would not have to go through the conditional use process there. it's where the conditional use process requirements are set upon formula retail, which is in the n-c districts except for
8:02pm
the places where formula retail is not allowed. >> it says before dpw even issued a permit there is a requirement that it be heard at the planning commission and in effect in the practical sense of what they would do, the planning commission would look at the zoning controls for the area. as you say, c-3 doesn't have formula controls and they would not offer -- as you know at the time cus are completely discretionary and so the commission can, if it's the will of the commission to not issue a cu, even if the zoning would allow for it, they would maintain that discretion. and the planning commission is not particularly favorable to formula retail at this present time. >> directors, so i'm trying to clarify the changes that are being proposed here.
8:03pm
right now we don't have a complete off-limitperiod. we have this thing when it's 300' there is a notification goes out. >> right. this is sort of the current zoning. so where it's red, it's permitted. which is why you see a heavy drivers' licensing of permits going into the downtown area. >> where the circles are are the 1500' buffers from school. there are faded red areas in those buffer zones. also you will see where st. mary's is, some of the other medical institutions, secondary education, those are in residential areas. that is one of the pieces of legislation is to open up those
8:04pm
areas to allow mobile retail vendors to be in those area as supervisor wiener said. >> so there would be opening up areas that are off-limits today and taking off other areas that would now become off-limits by the 50' mandatory no-go zone? so there would be something favoring the mobile food operators and there would be some taking away in other areas, right? >> right. >> and we're trying to get a balanced approach. i would like to hear what mr. quon would think, based on his expertise and you will not be held to the wire on this. do you agree with -- what do you think would be the impact as far as accessibility for independent operators to come in and start a business with this new legislation would it dramatically restrict them? because they are going to give
8:05pm
us the exaggerated investigator, which is what i would if i were them. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department of public works. what we have found is the loss of unintended consequences was very true in this case. the initial law passed was for mobile truck operators to be able to operate in the city, to bring a diversity of food in a variety of areas. when the code was written it restricted the commercial zones specifically. so when we printed out the map, what you see, and what happens is most people just fixate on where the most areas of concentrated in red is where you are supposed to be able to operate. so for them it's an easy area to try to identify. what we found was that most of the people wind up asking for the financial district, the market street area. those zones that are identify
8:06pm
there had, where there was a concentration of many lunchtime diners and restaurants which creates a level of conflict. with notification, usually the first thing the department hears they are like food within 300 feet of where i am. they object to the what is perceived as economic imbalance, the perception is that the mobile trucks do not. so in this specific case we're trying to address -- the supervisor and origins are trying to address it by trying to reduce the availability of high commercial areas. there is -- i would suggest
8:07pm
that food truck operators really look at landscape and look at areas underserved in many cases. the supervisor and the committee that reviewed this made a good point in that many hospitals, private schools are typically granted a conditional use and it doesn't make sense for restrictions for mobile food vendors that could provide certain types of services. with certain clarity, i think this could be a good piece of legislation. >> thank you. >> very helpful. commissioner riley? >> i also have a question for
8:08pm
mr. quon. when we first passed this legislation, originally, would it be better if we could just identify the underserved areas and permit food trucks to go in only those areas instead of opening up the whole downtown area and creating the conflicts between the restaurants and food trucks? >> that is a good question. one of the challenges that the department faced was that already this program was previously handled by the police department. and if the police department had already issued a variety of hot dog carts and what not in the downtown area. so had there been specific restrictions as you are describing, it would then put a premiere premium on the possible resale of those licenses. i don't know what the intent
8:09pm
from the legislation was, but i could see potentially those kind of licenses becoming similar to taxi medallions where they are are sold rather than controlling it in way where permits are issued for people to sell food specifically. i help that helps. >> i think we have created a situation where they are competing with each other in some areas. >> i would agree. there has also been other food trucks, specifically the cupcakes as an example. all they sell would be cupcakes. and they made a compelling argument in the director's hearing and others that what they are selling is a very in
8:10pm
essence, just selling cupcakes and may not be direct competition to other eating establishments. so again, there is a diversity and a variety of business plans from the variety of food trucks holders and mobile food caterers. if they could create something new and unique that could not be readily identified as a direct competition to other food establishments it would be difficult to suggest that they won't be able to operate. again that is a policy decision left for this commissioner and the board to decide. >> if we look at other cities, how do they handle food trucks and the conflicts between the food trucks and brick-and-mortar restaurants? >> we we have had feedback
8:11pm
from portland and santa barabara and most of these food trucks are placed upon private property, parking lots and some are placed along corridors in some cases. and there has been very mixed results. in some cases, these establishments would increase foot traffic, increase business in the areas. in others, it's been in some cases a reduction in the business of brick-and-mortars. so it's unknown at this point still. >> because i can see both sides. thank you. >> director? >> i had a question about something that just came up. what is the situation on, if someone has a permit in a highly prized location, are they allowed to sell that permit to someone else, or does that permit expire once that
8:12pm
particular business abandons that spot? >> commissioner the current legislation very specific. an applicant can sell his business in this case to someone else, but whoever purchases it will have to reapply for the permit. as along as they are operating the same hours and selling the same food product. >> thank you. >> director dick-endrizzi? >> just to go back to commissioner yee riley's question, some of the food desert areas are the areas in the r-h districts which are the medical establishments and secondary -- postsecondary education areas. so that was, i think, part of some of the considerations that we were thinking about in drafting the first piece of legislation
8:13pm
without recognizing that they are in r-h districts. >> any other commissioner comments? these are action items. we need to call each one of them separate, correct chris? >> yes. commissioners, if there are -- if you want to take especially for the public works one, if there are certain -- you can do straight up the full piece of legislation or if there is items that may not be a full -- you know, you might want to make some recommendations to. then you might want to sort of take it piece by piece. so that is just a recommendation. so that it gives a little more clarity to the legislative sponsor of things to focus on, if you want to do that.
8:14pm
>> okay. and i also want to acknowledge director dick-endrizzi's involvement in this, because it's very important, because these are small business owners both brick-and-mortar and food trucks and i just wanted to say what a good job getting involved in this. i really appreciate it. >> mr. president, would you like a roll call? >> we need to go legislation by legislation. >> you want me to go item by item? >> item by item. >> yes. commissioners the first item is item no. 9. which is file no. 12108 transportation code selling or distributing from a vehicle restrictions. >> do we have a motion? >> i move that we recommend this
8:15pm
>> do we have a second? >> can we just have a second here to kind of study this for a minute? this one director will remove the restriction right? >> this is the one that supervisor wiener had mentioned that it will allow the parking control officers to ticket an unpermitted vehicle. >> so i would second that one . >> roll call. >> commissioner adams? >> aye. >> commissioner dooley? >> aye. >> commissioner dwight is absent. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes. >> commissioner white? >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> e. commissioners that motion passed 6-0. item 10 is board of supervisors
8:16pm
file no. 120193, public works code mobile food truck locations. >> i move to recommend this with one recommendation which would be that we would urge the removal of all formula relate trucks of being allowed anywhere in san francisco. >> we have a motion by commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 with recommendation that former retail trucks be banned in the city. >> just to reiterate the key points of this piece of legislation, this changes the
8:17pm
perimeter, the distance -- well,, no; the 300 is not part of the distinction. what is being added is the 50' criteria that is saying a truck cannot be permitted. right now there is no criteria this from a distance that the truck in the initial permitting phase. there is no criteria. it's when a hearing is called for that 300' comes into consideration. so that distinction is that there is now being placed -- proposed in this legislation a 50' criteria saying automatically a truck cannot be located there unless there is approval from the restaurateur.
8:18pm
supervisor wiener says he is in discussion about restaurant not open at night and i don't know if you want to say that upon those discussions? so there is that. there is then the notification requirement is changing to notify property managers and property manageersrs, business owners and tenants on the ground floor. so it's a more focused notification, where before it was any business and could have been any of the businesses a high rise, which cost a lot of money for the mobile food vendor and also a lot of time for dpw to process those notifications. so this is a more targeted and refined notification.
8:19pm
and we have the middle school and high schools and reducing -- do i need to repeat what those driett criteria are? so public property that is adjacent to parks is under the rec and park jurisdiction and then of course, the formula retail requirement and permit cannot have more than three days in one location. >> commissioner riley? >> yes, i have a question on bullet no. 5, where it says, "no food truck may operate within 50 feet of any restaurant as measured from the address of the restaurant street frontage." with specific restrictions and revisions. so that means it's automatically no if it's within the 50 feet?
8:20pm
and also if the performance is issued by december 31st, 2012, then the restriction will not apply. so anything that is -- any permit that is issued prior to passing this amendment would not apply? >> right. those permits stay in existence for as along as those permits are . >> do is we know of any food trucks within 50 feet of any restaurants now? >> >> there are some. >> i would imagine there that there is. >> so they are grandfather in? >> they are grandfather in. >> i would like to add an additional recommendation, this would be to waive the 50' restriction for food trucks that operate after 10:00 p.m.,
8:21pm
specifically targeting food trucks near nightclubs and late-night vendors. >> should we handle it on a case-by-case basis or do it now? >> i think it's good to do it with recommendation with the following recommendations. >> yes. >> so i am abit worried commissioner dooley on the blanket statement on formula retail. i am with you and not a fan of formula retail, but worried about the law of unintended consequences. i think there are stop-gaps right now and it does have to go to the planning commission. so i just worried about the blanket statement. >> i just feel that because the intention of food trucks was to bring diversity and allow a number of small business operators to get into the food industry, i consider
8:22pm
it counterproductive to allow formula retail to be alluded as allowed as food trucks. i see it happening in other cities and view it as a negative thing that. is just my opinion. >> do we already have a cu process to control that? >> yes. but you know, i'm just saying to protect the small business operator. i don't see why a jack in the box food truck should be allowed in the financial district for any reason. >> i agree. >> for the purposes of moving this forward, i can go along with that. so right now we have that we would recommend it as worded with an additional
8:23pm
recommendation for a blanket denial to formula retail and also i think that we definitely should amend it as well to allow for nightclub owners. because that is totally, there should be no objection from the restaurateurs that are closed at 10:00 for someone who wants to operate for nightclub business. i think they should absolutely be allowed to do that. i can second that. i would like to ask the commissioners' feelings, would it be possible to try -- in order to get the economic activity that mobile food trucks may be able to bring to an area, would it be possible to make life a little bit more easier and maybe affect their bottom line in terms of what costs are if we could incentive and go into area has we identify as could really be
8:24pm
helped? i can just give you -- i will tell you right now that i own a building that is in an area that most people would consider to be a stressed area along the 3rd street corridor. and i have a vacant commercial space there and i invited starbucks to come in there and said absolutely no way, because they are not interested. which put me off a little bit. because there are other partners involved and they are not as worried about starbucks or formula retail, but then having said that, i would love to see if we were able to incentivize for mobile truck operators to come into areas that would make life easier for them and they looked at the bottom line and said if we can get into business next month, maybe we can bring traffic to this area? can i make a recommendation to look at that as a third idea
8:25pm
put forward with this? >> to fast-track? >> fast-tracking or something and look into that. >> i think what i would like to do is have -- i mean, one, that would require some budgetary requirement. because to do a study and an analysis to that would require some money for somebody to do research and analysis into those areas. i would have to research as to whether the city would provide that funding to be able to do that. as you know, our budget doesn't allow for those kinds of things. >> so you think it's maybe an idea to look at down the road, but not to be include here? >> i think, if the 50' element
8:26pm
moves through, i think my sense is one would have to see what the result of that is. it may push -- that restriction may push mobile food operators to take a look at other areas that they may not have considered. i don't know. it's something that i can ask and see if there is money there to do an economic sort of study and analysis, but we might just want to see what the outcomes are after this legislation moves through. >> okay. well, sorry. >> i have a comment and question regarding commissioner dooley's recommendation about after 10:00 that it be allowed. i am hesitant to put it as a
8:27pm
blanket on this legislation rather than to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. because in addition, to the nightclub and restaurants you also have property owners and residents in that area that we might need to consider. >> we could amend it to say that it would be waived adjacent to night clubs. i'm not quite sure what would be the best way to word it? >> i think we're just trying to say that the restrictions there to protect brick-and-mortar businesses because they are losing businesses, it won't apply to them in the after-hours, so an amendment to make it easier for them to get a permit to operate after-hours. >> i am not disagreeing with that. i don't know whether or not we should put in into a blanket statement in this legislation issue? >> first off, if there is after-hours, the criteria
8:28pm
after-hours of a mobile food vendor wants to operate, there is a more stringent noticing requirement. so with that idea of residential combined, but may i make a recommendation, since supervisor wiener is sort of in discussion with entertainment commission, maybe your recommendation is that perhaps the recommendation is that you would be sensitive and encourage supervisor wiener to work something out along those lines unless you want it re-referred back to you to be heard? am i making sense on that? >> yes. >> just to to say that you might want to just indicate your support of what supervisor wiener would work out with the entertainment commission, if that is the direction you would want to go. >> i think that makes more
8:29pm
sense. >> chris, could you read that back? >> before you read that back, director dick-endrizzi, do you have another comment? okay. commiss. chris. >> one moment, please. commissioners i have a motion from commissioner dooley to recommend approval of 120193 recommendation that there be a ban on you all former retail food trucks and to accommodate the location in the vicinity of nightlife businesses that may be located within a proximity of brick-and-mortar restaurants that may be closed after a certain hour. >> yes, good. >> does that accurately reflect it? >> yes. that motion is from commissioner do